Some Comments on Immigration

The government preventing illegals from being hired is one of the few times I agree with a government intervention. It allows a clear rule of law that can be applied fairly in a way everyone can understand in advance what is prohibited, no legal residency no work. It is a humane way of keeping out illegals, with no work here it stops them at the incentive level before they enter. If you allowed anyone to enter and work but then forcibly deported those who had no right to, you have a bad situation of police action against unwilling people.

Yes, it is a clear rule of law but has nothing to do with free markets. If a businessman wants to hire someone from another country and someone else is willing to rent such a person an apartment, how is this any of your business unless you are a totalitarian?

Well this post has changed my mind.Let the Somalis and Sudanese pour in !Liberty !

Well, in a society based on liberty no one would say you have to live or associate with Somalis, but do you want to make a rule that becasue you don't want to associate with them no one else in the United States can? You are a totalitarian!

1) Welfare -- which shouldn't exist at all, but it definitely creates animus toward illegals. Indeed, quite a number of SoCal hospitals have shut down, or at least stopped emergency services, because the government forces them to provide free health care to illegals.

2) Voting -- We don't need more "tyranny of the gimme" at the ballot box. We should be shrinking suffrage (or eliminating it through a private law society), not increasing it.

There's actually NO illegal immigrant issue. The point made before that they consume welfare or social assistance is merely a red herring promoted - dishonestly - by those who simply don't like immigrants. When urgent care is provided because the law demands it, the problem is the law, not the immigrants or anyone else for that matter. When schools are made to accommodate people from other countries, the problem is with the compulsory nature of education and not with immigrants or anybody else for that matter.

Put it simply, you cannot deny a person's right to peacefully and voluntarily migrate or the right of others to trade with immigrants only because of the existence of ancillary services.

--- Like Trump do you have a central planning mentality where you think you know what kind of immigrants should come to this country? ---

I am so glad you place the finger right on the issue by calling it what it is: Economic Central Planning.

I've made that same point many times on Reason Magazine's blog (i.e Hit & Run) on Facebook, Townhall dot com, etc. The conceit that a body of bureaucrats can KNOW what is better for 'us' is as absurd and inconceivable when it comes to immigration as it is for any other economic good. Why would people think the government is competent for one thing and not the other?

But leave it to those wbo conflate government with 'we' whenever they argue that 'we' should be able to determine who is let in and who isn't. The cognitive dissonance is loud enough to shake the foundations of Mt. Everest.

I don't want to be a hit and run commentator:1. Immigrants can change the character of a nation (its institutions, its trust level, levels of graft, etc. because they become voters and they come to administer institutions).2. You have no idea how many people would come to the US if unlimited immigration from the world were established.3. Most of the people in the world do not desire to live under libertarian principles. In fact, most prefer government control of prices, enforcement of greater equal outcomes, use of government power to advantage majority groups at the expense of minority groups. Wherever they come into power (such as after the collapse of the European colonies) they established societies organized according to those principles.

The US during the Enlightenment was the closest thing to a society organized around to individual liberties, private property and rule of law, that the world has ever seen.

So, too, can children. Be consistent and propose a mass sterilization program while we're at it.

─ You have no idea how many people would come to the US if unlimited immigration from the world were established.─

Yes, I have an idea of how many:

*** AS MANY AS THE MARKET WANTS. ***

That's how many. Can you refute that?

─ Most of the people in the world do not desire to live under libertarian principles. ─

So what, if true? Which is not.

─ In fact, most prefer government control ─

So what, if true? If the superiority of our ideas is merely a mirage or a self-delusion, then what would it matter in the end? The people inside would slowly realize this, making your objection moot. Explain it to me. If, instead, you believe our ideas are indeed superior, then why would it matter the sort of superstitions immigrants hold? I don't understand why people think this "we must protect our precious bodily culture, Mandrake!" argument is compelling or cogent. Hoppe makes the same argument and he never seems to address how come our ideas are so vulnerable they must be protected from outside influences. The only people who actively sought to protect their ideas from outside influences were guys like the medieval Japanese and Communists.

I should have said Immigrants WILL change the character of the US. It's true children CAN (particularly if indoctrinated in government schools) but immigrants WILL. Outside of the Anglosphere, no people hold ideals like the USA.

Second I think our institutions and principles are best FOR US. Other nations and peoples may prefer a theocracy, or socialism, it may be best for them. Let them live in nations that hold their values. I like a secular nation, I like freedom to make my own life. Many people come here merely because of economic prospect with no attraction to our way of life. I would say our way of life is part of the reason we live so well but those people disagree with me. So be it. Let them improve their economic prospects in their theocratic or socialistic nation.

Because our institutions are best for me does not mean in a free competition where much of the population is imported from other cultures I can convince them of the value of what I hold dear. Maybe it is not the best for them. Do I have any obligation to allow them to enter and try to change my culture into theirs?

Lastly, what is you view of invasion? If an army from another country came over our borders set up settlements and proclaimed allegiance to their government instead of ours would you act to turn them out? What if they came in small groups as tourists and immigrants and set up their own neighborhoods, towns and compounds. They do not actively violate our laws but say they are part of their nation and answer to their government. They fly their flags, educate their children, set up their own courts, informally enforce their law in the community and work to change our nation to be like theirs.

"How many people would come to the US if unlimited immigration from the world were established?" I guess about 3 billion within 10-20 years. There would be mass poverty, infectious diseases and marauding armies of millions.

--- I should have said Immigrants WILL change the character of the US. It's true children CAN (particularly if indoctrinated in government schools) but immigrants WILL. ---

Unless these children are brain-dead, they also will change the character of the US. Be that as it may, you're once again obfuscating the issue of how can this abstraction you hold on to justifies trampling over individuals' rights?

--- Outside of the Anglosphere, no people hold ideals like the USA. ---

That's a grotesque lie. Let's stop with the collectivist arguments. There are people who are statists and there are those who are not, but they're not separated by meaningless features such as origin or ethnicity.

--- Second I think our institutions and principles are best FOR US. ---

I don't know who are these "us" that you allude to. My principles are good to me because they're universal, they're right. I'm not a chauvinist, by the way. Institutions come and go but moral principles prevail, and mine at least tell me that I have NO right to tell others who they should hire or rent to or marry to.

--- Other nations and peoples may prefer a theocracy, or socialism, it may be best for them. ---

They won't migrate to the US. People that conservative don't care for uprooting themselves. This fear you harbor is unwarranted.

--- Do I have any obligation to allow them to enter and try to change my culture into theirs? ---

You have an obligation not to impede their actions if they are voluntary and peaceful, just like you have an obligation to leave me the hell alone if I want to marry, rent to or hire an immigrant.

--- Lastly, what is you view of invasion? ---

Are you changing the subject? Because Im not. Sorry.

--- What if they came in small groups as tourists and immigrants and set up their own neighborhoods, towns and compounds. ---

Only when there are no government owned lands.Dream on.If I wanted to live in Mexico, I would move to Mexico and follow their laws and adapt to their culture.There are outliers, the exception, in another's culture. But, when dealing with immigration, especially on the numbers we are experiencing, it is the general and average that affect change.Which rights are you willing to give up in the pursuit of the eradication of pur culture?I am willing to give up none and we have plenty of battles already wihout importing bigger ones.

Torres:"abstraction you hold on to justifies trampling over individuals' rights?"

Do you think individual rights include the right to settle in another country? That has never been so. Try to migrate to Israel, Japan, Australia, or even the caribbean islands that sell citizenship - you have no right to do so you may do so with permission.

"There are people who are statists and there are those who are not, but they're not separated by meaningless features such as origin or ethnicity."

That's why black Americans, including conservative church ladies voted 98% for Obama. "They won't migrate to the US. People that conservative don't care for uprooting themselves. This fear you harbor is unwarranted"

You jest. Polls show a majority of Muslim immigrants prefer that America be governed in accordance with Islamic law. A Muslim who prefers his wife veiled and his daughter subject to arranged marriage at pain of death may well want to move to USA because a job he can get here will feed his family and a job he can get their not so much.

Regarding the comment from Munch: "The government preventing illegals from being hired is one of the few times I agree with a government intervention."

All employers know that is not directly the gunvernment preventing so called illegals from hire. Employers are doing he footwork as they are forced by the gunverment to police for those without documents required by the gunvernment.

The number of third world immigrants that have arrived over the past few decades roughly equals the number of Americans babies aborted over the same period. Roughly. All this white anxiety about immigrants changing the culture is just a projection of aging whitey's creeping realization that their sons are bums and their daughters are whores. Losers losing. It's not the end of the world. It's the end of you.

"It is not YOUR Shire. Others lived here before Hobbits, and others will live here still when Hobbits are no more." - Elrond

Actually I am getting way too into this. What is the libertarian response to war?

If a country is attacked (there are other people organized as countries and they have militaries). I would guess one would increase the salary and benefits of soldiers to get enough contract soldiers to defend the nation.

Then there are tanks and jet fighters and ships and bombs. I guess they can be purchased on the free market. Of course there has to be a chain of command. Everyone involved in the defense enterprise will have to sign a contract subjecting themselves to direction from above.

The expense of all this? Presumably wartime taxes in the interest of survival.

If some5 group who do not agree with you invades your country by force and seeks to impose all sorts of conditions and requirements on you by force you will need collective action to repulse what is about to be visited upon you. The way nations clash is far beyond what a police force and courts can deal with.

"If a businessman wants to hire an immigrant and someone else is willing to rent him an apartment..."There is more to life than temporary work contracts and 1 bedroom apartments. For communities to live together peacefully & survive crises, people need to have ties that bind them to each other and to the place. There is an emotional and a psychological component to this.

Moscow put a man in space before the USA. Of course they could have never developed a 747 aircraft and we need to allow lots of people in so they can develop 747 aircraft, particularly people who believe in spirits and devils, and cannot read or write, and will all vote democratic party putting and end to your particular political fraction forever.

Is this guy a "totalitarian" also ?"I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians has been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these people."https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/why-rothbard-changed-on-immigration/

RW's argument is the same all over the libertarian blogosphere. It's been Ron Paul's commentary on the issue for the last 2 decades. The debate won't move forward until others credibly attack the school of Hoppe and Rothbard (and followers like Bionicmosquito); currently that is limited to scholars like Walter Block publishing in journals.

Mr. Torres is clearly attached to Ron Paul's traditional observations in immigration, which at their core are essentially true - you can mitigate immigration problems by changing the laws.

But it would be nice to see novel counters to the following Hoppean retorts: (1) there is no right to immigrate on private property, and (2) if a modern Western state invited 10 million immigrants, those immigrants as a practical matter will, due to current or expected laws and government policy, be a huge drain on government resources and not easily or cleanly settle into existing American communities.

The natural barrier to this sort of mass immigration is the market, and the absence of easy opportunity for a newly arrived 10 million (or the true costs of settlement). But government involvement will subsidize so many of those costs, as they do in Europe where they pay Syrians $1000 Euros a month to sit around and not get jobs, in a heavily unionized labor market where they don't have jobs anyway.

Even little things will change the community unnaturally, like the fact that indigent immigrants can roam around in public roads and parks. There would likely be no such easy availability in a private property society, where the liability and solvency of 'customers' will be vetted through sophisticated market mechanisms.

Hoppe's central point then, is that the only practical self-defense a property owner has in a modern Western country is to vote to restrict immigration. That some people's property rights/desires are hindered is something of a double effect of a moral act of defense.

At least, so goes the argument. I'm waiting to see a novel retort beyond Walter Block's very good "public property is abandoned property" line of argument.